By The River

If liberals have learned anything in the last 25 years, it is they must beware of sneak attacks from the right that aim through lies and trickery to make it impossible to create the government programs we know are necessary to help the majority of Americans. Like national healthcare.

One such maneuver in Arizona, almost unnoticed until Washington Post columnist George Will wrote an article praising it, would make it illegal under Arizona law to require state residents to participate in a comprehensive health insurance program on the order of those in France or Canada, let alone a much more modest program like that in Massachusetts. Proposition 101 would, in effect, lock the current healthcare mess in place under high-flying rhetoric about "freedom of choice."

If your employer provides you with good health insurance, charges you nothing, or a modest amount for it, or you have the means to buy your own good plan, you'll have "freedom of choice." If you're in the working poor, unemployed, or your employer provides no health insurance, your "freedom" won't get you any health insurance. How many people can on their own afford a typical family health insurance plan costing $12,000 to $15,000 a year or more?

Here's how Proposition 101 is worded: "Because all people should have the right to make decisions about their health care, no law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

This reminds me of U.S. Supreme Court rulings during the so-called "Lochner Era" around the turn of the 20th century. The Court regularly struck down state worker protection laws, including child labor laws, on the grounds that they violated "right of contract." In other words, they stopped you from contracting with an employer to work a low-paid, dangerous job. They stopped 8-year-olds from working in mills. You get the idea.

I've made no secret of my admiration for France's national health insurance model, which provides timely, comprehensive, no-questions-asked health care to all residents of that country in return for a modest payment of about $1,500 per year. If you are poor or unemployed, even that co-pay is waived as I understand it. Treatment delays--the great bugaboo of U.S. national healthcare opponents--are minimal to none. The French government pays for most of this through taxation. Yes, French taxes are higher than American taxes, but you get something for them other than senseless wars of choice.

Proposition 101 would bar even efforts by the state of Arizona to place reasonable regulations on health insurance plans. The key words are "private plans of any types." So if a health insurance company wants to offer a plan with crappy coverage and lots of trick clauses that allow them to deny coverage if you get sick, that would be its right under Proposition 101. You have complete freedom to be deceived or cheated.

I'm sure the proponents of Proposition 101 are counting on cheap rhetoric, widespread public misunderstanding about the French and Canadian healthcare systems, and outright deception to get this benighted proposal past voter scrutiny. Those who benefit financially from the current health care mess are desperate to stop likely President Obama and a strongly Democratic Congress from finally ending their gravy train.

Don't be deceived.

Posted by David at 06:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

History never really repeats itself, but it is often interesting to look at parallels between a politician of one era and a politician of another. Character types often repeat themselves in remarkably similar ways from one era to the next.

The recent revelation on Politico.com that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, aka "Hockey Mom to the People," had been outfitted at party expense with $150,000 in new clothing for the fall campaign has prompted an orgy of predictions that this revelation would finish Palin with swing voters and even the Republican base. And it may well do that, although she was plummeting in the popularity polls even before the clothes horse stampede.

No one that I know of has drawn the obvious parallel that Palin is recreating the life of Eva Peron, the First Lady of Argentina from 1946-52. Known as Evita to her adoring working class crowds (Madonna played her in the film version of Evita), she dressed regally in European fashions. If that seemed out of place for someone dedicated to the interests of the poor, Evita would argue back that her followers expected it of her. She was living the life they wanted to but could not. Makes a certain amount of crazy sense.

In this historical parallel game, Sen. John McCain becomes Juan Peron, the President of Argentina and Evita's husband. Peron was 24 years older than Evita, while McCain is 28 years older than Palin. Close enough to keep the game alive. And here's where the game really gets interesting: in 1951, Evita attempted to become her husband's vice president.

As Wikipedia puts it: "In 1951, Evita set her sights on earning a place on the ballot as candidate for vice-president. This move angered many military leaders who despised Evita and her increasing powers within the government. According to the Argentine Constitution, the Vice President automatically succeeds the President in the event of the President's death. The possibility of Evita becoming president in the event of Juan Perón's death was not something the military could accept."

Substitute Gen. Colin Powell for the Argentine military and the parallel continues. But unlike in America, Evita withdrew from the ticket under pressure and died of cancer a year later. So there you have it: history never really repeats itself exactly.

And no, this isn't sexism. One conservative commentator argued that no one would pay attention if a male Democratic candidate splurged on clothes at Brooks Brothers. Probably not. As an occasional Brooks Brothers customer, I can tell you that a male candidate could be outfitted there for far less than $150,000. Brooks Brothers suits typically cost just under $1,000 each. Let's assume the candidate needs 10 of those, so we're up to $10,000. Add 10 white shirts at $75 each, and the total reaches $10,750. Add 10 ties at $60 apiece and we're at $11,350. Men don't need a lot of shoes, so we'll add four pairs of dress shoes at a liberal $350 apiece. Now we've spent $12,750. And looking really good, too.

No, this is about an over-developed sense of entitlement, which Eva Peron (and Imelda Marcos) had in spades and, it seems, Sarah Palin does as well.

Posted by David at 09:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The recent court ruling in Lebanon, Pa., that "soccer mom" Meleanie Hain has a legal right to carry a handgun in a holster at her five-year-old daughter's soccer games has terrified other parents and left soccer league officials scrambling for a legal way they can keep Hain away from games. So far, they haven't found one. Judge Robert Eby criticized her for poor judgment, but in my opinion that's just mother's milk to gun zealots, feeding their persecution fantasies and making them heroes in their own mind.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 ruling that the Second Amendment supposedly creates an "individual" right to own a firearm (for the first 225 years of the U.S. Constitution, courts had consistently held that the 2nd Amendment only established the right of states to their own armies, i.e., National Guards). Even conservative legal scholars have criticized this decision as driven by rightwing politics instead of good legal scholarship.

Very few people have a legitimate need to carry a handgun, and Mrs. Hain doesn't appear to be one of them. That's what police are for. The argument that crime could happen anywhere and all people need to carry a handgun is the first step down the road to anarchy. Overall violent crime in America has been in decline for many years. Do we really want Mrs. Hain deciding who needs to be shot? There are enough problems when police (as they must) make this life-and-death decision. Here's to the hope that a way can be found to keep her and her like away from youth sporting events.

Posted by David at 09:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Happy official Columbus Day to you all. The weather in Harrisburg, Pa., looks to be beautiful again, and Sen. Barack Obama appears headed toward an electoral vote landslide.

Go to Electoral-Vote.com if you don't believe me. This is one of several similar sites which aggregates polling data from the 50 states and keeps track of who is up and who is down. They say that if the election was held today, Obama would likely win 343 electoral votes, Sen. John McCain 184.

Of the 343 electoral votes pegged for Obama, 235 are considered "strong." That means he needs just 35 more to win the Presidency. He is leading in the states pegged for him that are not in the "strong" category, just not by as much.

What's interesting is that some of the states in the former Confederacy still counted for McCain are sliding toward the Obama camp. In North Carolina, the polls have Obama and McCain separated by only one percentage point. McCain still leads in Georgia and Mississippi, but by margins way less than George W. Bush received in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Black voter turn-out will be the key in all the Southern states.

Florida, which like North Carolina has received many Northern transplants, is counted for Obama. He leads McCain here by 4 percentage points, too close to count as a "strong" state, especially given what happened here in the 2000 election. Obama is leading McCain in Virginia by 51-45 percent, and in West Virginia by 50-42 percent.

In the north, Pennsylvania is comfortably in the Obama column. In Ohio, Obama leads by a not-comfortable 49-46 percent. All of the Northeast is comfortably in the Obama camp except for Maine, where he leads McCain by just five points.

Electoral-Vote.com also shows that if the election was held today, the Democrats would end up with 59 seats, one short of the number needed to create a filibuster-proof majority. Obama will need that to bring about the change the country needs, but I have a feeling that the tide is with him and he'll get that last Senate seat--or more.

Posted by David at 07:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been a bit distracted lately, which is why I haven't written anything. The newsroom of the paper where I work, The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa., has been in turmoil since buy-out offers were given to the entire staff last Tuesday. The family that owns The Patriot-News and a couple of dozen other papers across the country like the Cleveland Plain-Dealer have a policy of not laying off for economic reasons. Thus the "voluntary" buy-outs. But that policy doesn't limit them from indirectly making it clear to many that they should take the buy-out. Pressure on the staff has been intense. There is a widespead feeling among the staff that the company wants most of us in the newsroom to leave. And I do plan to go and begin a new life doing somethng else, either in public or government relations or writing books. At age 55 with two daughters to educate, I can't just rest on my laurels, tempting as that is. I'll have a year to figure it out.

Posted by David at 06:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Did you notice? Sarah Palin received NOT ONE tough question from moderator Gwen Ifill in the vice presidential debate tonight.

Nothing about the Bridge to Nowhere. Nothing about, "I can see Russia from my house." Nothing about her vehement opposition to abortion and stem cell research. Nothing about her demand that "Intelligent Design" be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes. Nothing about firing the director of the Alaska State Police because he wouldn't fire her ex-brother-in-law, then involved in a bitter child custody dispute with her sister. Nothing but softball questions.

Ifill, a former New York Times reporter who now works for PBS, appears to have been thoroughly cowed by the rightwing attacks on her credibility that preceded the debate. Her "sin" in their eyes was to have a book coming out in January that included Sen. Barack Obama as one of four "breakthrough" black politicians. Which, win or lose, he is.

Ifill failed to keep Palin on topic, admittedly a tough task. Palin simply didn't answer questions she didn't like or couldn't answer, and at one point boasted that she wasn't going to be bound by the questions asked but would instead "tell my story to the American people." Palin showed that when she is coached for several weeks she can sound competent on stage. Why can't she do the same in an interview with Katie Couric?

Biden generally did well, better than I hoped. He smiled too much, though, and should have denounced Palin for accusing Obama of "waving the white flag of surrender" by wanting to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. That was despicable. I think she knew Biden was going easy on her and decided to chance taking a few cheap shots to please her handlers. It was gratifying to see that CBS's audience of undecideds showed (via their Nielsen meters) a sharp negative reaction to Palin's slur.

And Palin's voice. The "Fargo" voice. The dropped 'g's and the "betcha's." My younger daughter, age 11, finally announced that Palin's voice was quite annoying. She stuck out the entire debate, though, and I'm proud of her for that.

Posted by David at 11:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On paper, Sen. Joe Biden should wipe the floor with Gov. Sarah Palin in the vice presidential debate tonight in St. Louis. He is an experienced and respected U.S. Senator who heads the Foreign Relations Committee. Palin, on the other hand, has managed to make cringe-worthy remarks on each of the few times the McCain campaign has allowed her to speak to the press, most notably in the recent Katie Couric interview.

But Biden is prone to what I'll call "honest gaffes" in which the vocal cords get out ahead of the brain synapses. A recent example of this was when he commented that President Frankin D. Roosevelt spoke "on television" to the American people about the Great Depression. Of course, he meant FDR's famous "Fireside Chats" on radio. He knew that. He just misspoke himself. The danger is that this sort of a gaffe can prove a distraction to his and Barack Obama's overall message.

Not that I think it's going to matter. Obama is surging in the polls, taking a significant lead over McCain overall and in important swing states like Pennsyvania, Ohio, and Florida. I was driving through Hampden Twp. in West Shore suburban Harrisburg yesterday and was pleased at the number of Obama yard signs I saw in this Republican stronghold. If Obama can keep up the good work, our eight-year national nightmare that began with the stolen election in 2000 may soon be over.

Posted by David at 06:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)